Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I entirely agree on the importance of the Governments across the United Kingdom working together on this issue, and that is exactly the approach that I took in doing this work over the summer, and as I indicated to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), I repeat my commitment. I spoke to Health Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before taking this action.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Minister has come to the House so quickly to give the assurances that he has given, but reading the statement, I see quite frequently such phrases as “at the earliest opportunity” and “if the parliamentary timetable allows.” Those who are suspicious will wonder if this will be dragged out. May I ask two questions on the details? The Paymaster General has indicated that those on regular payments can keep them if they so desire, but will that be on top of the compensation package, or will the compensation be adjusted to take that into consideration? Secondly, if people go down the health impact supplementary route for additional compensation, will it delay the payment that they are entitled to, or will the comprehensive package be available to them, with the additional compensation added on after more information is given?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the first point, the Government are saying that people can have both a continuation of the support schemes and the lump-sum compensation as well. Awards are made under five heads of loss: injury, social impact, autonomy, care and financial loss. The continuation of the support schemes is taken into account for only two of those: the future care element and the future earnings element. The other elements stand alone. That is one of the big changes the Government have made to allow these support schemes to continue.

On the health impact supplementary route, the regulations have set up the core route. That health impact special route has been set up because there will be circumstances in which the health impact and condition is not quite captured by the core tariffs under the scheme. This route has been put in place to make the package more individualised. Again, I undertake to the House that action will be taken as swiftly as possible.

Debate on the Address

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

First of all, may I correct something the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said? There has not been an increase in Sinn Féin representation following the election, though people might be forgiven for thinking so, given the way the BBC reported on the election in Northern Ireland.

Secondly, may I congratulate the Government on their success in the election? Like others, we wish them every success, because a successful Government means a successful country.

Thirdly, may I say to all those who have made their maiden speeches today that it is a very nervous experience? I can remember my maiden speech. My party’s leader at the time, Ian Paisley, took me aside and said, “Sammy, there are three things you’ve got to do. First of all, you’ve got to speak nicely about your constituency.” Over the years, I have listened to people speaking about their constituencies in their maiden speeches, and I have always thought that they would make great estate agents. Secondly, he said, “Say nice things about your predecessor,” despite the fact that I had spent a year knocking on doors, talking to people, addressing meetings and giving out leaflets to tell people why they should not vote for him. Lastly, he said, “Sammy, don’t be controversial.” Coming from Ian Paisley, that advice really capped it all.

I will say two things about the King’s Speech in the time available to me. First, I am pleased that the Government are looking at how they can strengthen the Union and for ways to foster collaboration between the devolved Administrations, because sometimes devolved Administrations can be very divisive for the coherence of the country. They claim all the benefits and take credit for all the good things that happen, and they blame Westminster for all the bad things, which can cause division. As a Unionist, I am pleased to see that, through the proposed council of the nations and regions, we will hopefully get a greater degree of collaboration, communication and understanding between different parts of the Union.

However, I have to say that this issue cannot be addressed unless the Government seriously look at the damage done to the Union by the previous Administration, which made Northern Ireland a sacrificial lamb in order to get a deal with the EU, leaving us with the economic and constitutional disadvantages and divisions that that has caused. Those are manifested on a daily basis, and the EU seems determined not to address them—whether it is veterinary medicines, which will wreck the farming industry; the recent dental amalgams, which will make dental treatment more expensive and very difficult in Northern Ireland; the latest controversy about funding for the shipyard and whether it contravenes state aid rules; or the disruption of supply chains, which is an issue that has to be addressed.

We cannot have an economic division between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and a Government who profess that they want to strengthen the Union cannot ignore that elephant in the room. Many of the new Members who have been elected came here because they want to have an influence on the laws that govern the United Kingdom. There are 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland that are determined not by this Parliament or by the people elected in Northern Ireland, but in Europe, without any input from anyone in the United Kingdom. That is not democracy, and it has to be addressed.

The second issue I will mention is the Government’s commitment to economic growth. In any country, economic growth depends upon cheap energy, and I am fearful that some of the policies that have already been implemented, and the promises made in the King’s Speech, will make it difficult to achieve economic growth. In the previous Parliament we lamented, almost on a monthly basis, the loss of energy-intensive industries. It did not matter whether it was Port Talbot, Corby or Grangemouth. Representatives from all over the United Kingdom saw the impact on their local communities, with thousands of jobs being lost because of energy policies and the costs of implementing net zero. If we are aiming for economic growth, we cannot allow the obsession with net zero to stand in the way of jobs in this country.

I notice that in the commitment to net zero in the King’s Speech, we are told that we will get lower energy bills over time. Initially, of course, we will have higher energy bills. We want to remove the infrastructure that we have in place and put totally new infrastructure in place—windmills, new lines and all the other infrastructure that is required to bring energy from places where we do not currently produce it to where we need it. We need to strengthen the grid, because we are going to use more electricity. All of that costs, and it will put up consumers’ bills. At the same time, of course, we will make ourselves more dependent on the country that supplies all the vital metals required for that. We do not even gain any environmental benefits.

The right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) talked about the impact on his community. In my constituency, I see the Antrim hills being stripped of peat, 3 metres deep, to build wind farms. That is supposed to be environmental improvement. I look forward, over the period of this Government, to examining just what they do on this issue. We need to make sure that we do not have contradictory policies, whereby we aim for net zero but dip our hands into people’s pockets to pay for it.